W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2003

Re: HTML or XHTML - why do you use it?

From: Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP] <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 14:56:46 +0000
Message-ID: <3E1AEAAE.276D3B32@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: "Peter Foti (PeterF)" <PeterF@SystolicNetworks.com>, "'Nick Boalch'" <nick@fof.durge.org>, "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>



Ian Hickson wrote:

[snip]

> The process usually goes like this:
> 
>   1. Authors write invalid XHTML (or XHTML that makes other
>      assumptions that are only valid for tag soup or HTML UAs, and not
>      XHTML UAs), and send it as text/html.
> 
>   2. Authors find everything works fine.
> 
>   3. Time passes.
> 
>   4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml,
>      because it is, after all, XHTML.
> 
>   5. Author finds site breaks horribly.
> 
>   6. Author blames XHTML.
> 
> Steps 1 to 5 have been seen by every single person I have spoken to
> who has switched to using the XHTML MIME type. The only reason step 6
> didn't happen in those cases is that they were advanced authors who
> understood how to fix their content.

I am truly amazed by your findings.  It would seem obvious
to me that those sufficiently aware of XHTML to be interested in
migrating to it would by definition have been those to whom
validation was already second nature.  Who, amongst $hoi polloi$,
has even /heard/ of XHTML ?  Surely it is the cognoscenti who
will move towards XHTML, and they, by definition, are already
valiating each and every HTML document that they create; why
should they stop this just because they are moving towards XHTML?

It just doesn't make sense to me ...

Philip Taylor, RHBNC
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2003 09:56:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:53 GMT